A close-up look at NYC education policy, politics,and the people who have been, are now, or will be affected by acts of corruption and fraud. ATR CONNECT assists individuals who suddenly find themselves in the ATR ("Absent Teacher Reserve") pool and are the "new" rubber roomers, and re-assigned. The terms "rubber room" and "ATR" mean that you or any person has been targeted for removal from your job. A "Rubber Room" is not a place, but a process.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

On tuesday June 23, 2009, I attended the monthly meeting of the New York City Board of Education "school board" commonly known as the Panel For Educational Policy. Every month I marvel at the show of 17 professional, intelligent people scrambling to please our "pretend" Chancellor Joel Klein. All members of the Panel do whatever Joel Klein wants, except Patrick Sullivan, who is the single independent thinker in the group, but who sadly goes along with breaking the law. Last week we in NYC were shocked to hear that the PEP members quickly assembled in a secret session to vote on the $22 billion budget, with approximately 54 minutes of notice to the public. Actually, there is a long list of laws that this sad group of power-wannabees are breaking: Open Meetings Law; Title VII; Civil Rights Act;Voter Rights Act; Whistleblower; Education Law 2590...to name a few. If I were any of these Panel members I would immediately resign, and thus divert possible implication in any summons and complaints that may be coming in the future.

Simply by accepting a position on the Panel, a person enters the realm of "I hope I fool the public". As our revered President Abraham Lincoln said:

“You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”

Let me tell you, dear Panel members, you cant fool New York City public school parents into valuing your words or thoughts. The room last night at Tweed headquarters was, as usual, more than half empty. However, there is something that you are doing that is serious, in terms of public trust and confidence.

The PEP members are all in violation of Open Meetings Law Section 105. None of the members have ever protested the Executive Session held BEFORE the public meeting begins, and they are, therefore, willingly and even more importantly knowingly violating the Section in Open Meetings Law that requires the public meeting to begin, and THEN a vote to be taken on going into an Executive Session. Joel of course told me that my reading of the law is incorrect, but I have the support on this issue of none other than Robert Freeman, Director of the Committee on Open Government, who has many advisory opinions on this issue available on his website.

Mike Best rolled his eyes when I brought this up, so please go to my blog and see how he ripped two pages out of my pad when I was invited to review the Ross Global Charter application at Tweed. Actually, Garth Harries' then boss Mashea Ashton ripped the pages out, then Mike told me he would have to redact a personal address. See the story I wrote about that incident.

The PEP members also violate the Bylaws of the PEP, which in Section 1.5 requires that there be a Secretary, and a person must take notes. (See Section 1.6 too). There are no minutes. I think that Michael Best is extremely embarrassed by this, as he supposedly is the "Secretary", I heard when I reviewed the Bylaws at Tweed in 2005. I filed a freedom of information request two years ago to get the minutes, and the Office of Legal Services central records access person, Christine Kicinski, sent me the agenda for the General Public meeting of the PEP, with an altered Agenda at that!! They re-wrote the agenda to make it look like from 2002-2007 that the Executive Sessions had occurred AFTER the public meeting began. Luckily, in 2007 I downloaded from the NYC BOE website all the meeting agendas with Executive Sessions, and they all have a listing that says the meeting started AFTER the ES.

I contacted someone at Tweed for months, and asked her to have Mr. Best stop the funny business, and simply have him put in writing that there are no minutes to the Executive Sessions or the PEP meetings. I define "minutes" in the classic way - notes on everyone who speaks, what was proposed, etc. About two weeks ago I received the acknowledgment I requested that there are no minutes - from Best.

Even more atrocious, I believe, was the agenda (sent out twice in the last two days) which clearly states that an Executive Session will take place "prior to the 6p.m public start time" for "Matters Pertaining to Employee Discipline: Inquest on Employee Termination."

On my blog, NYC Rubber Room Reporter, I have an article on the "Gotcha Squad" that shows how secret TAC memos are created and then brought to the Executive Session to vote on the termination of a teacher, without the teacher being there. of course. The PEP has been, is, and will be sued for this practice (two such cases: Norgrove v NYC Bd. of Educ. (see below); Hipolito Colon v City of NY, NYC BOE, Liza Caraballo).

It was brought up at the PEP meeting that ARIS was now available to "ALL" parents. (What about parents without computers?). I got home at about 9:30PM to find my notice of ARIS for my daughter in the mail! My question for the NYC is: what about parents without computers and no Parent Coordinator in the school, or no notice from the Parent Coordinator and no information about the new P311 (???) that Mr. Lieberman said last night was being set up?

An amendment to §107(1) of the Open Meetings Law recently approved is intended to improve compliance and to ensure that public business is discussed in public as required by that law. Effective August 5, 2008, the new provision states that when it is found by a court that a public body voted in private “in material violation” of the law “or that substantial deliberations occurred in private” that should have occurred in public, the court “shall award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees” to the person or entity that initiated the lawsuit.

The mandatory award of attorney’s fees would apply only when secrecy is the issue. In other instances, those in which the matter involves compliance with other aspects of the Open Meetings Law, such as a failure to fully comply with notice requirements, the sufficiency of a motion for entry into executive session, or the preparation of minutes in a timely manner, the award of attorney’s fees by a court would remain, as it has since 1977, discretionary.

The intent of the amendment is not to encourage litigation. On the contrary, it is intended to enhance compliance and to encourage members of public bodies and those who serve them to be more knowledgeable regarding their duty to abide by the Open Meetings Law.

Thursday, January 29, 2009
Due process requires good faith effort to serve disciplinary charges on employee
Due process requires good faith effort to serve disciplinary charges on employee
Matter of Norgrove v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 2009 NY Slip Op 29034, decided on January 13, 2009, Supreme Court, New York County, Justice Joan A. Madden

Lesleigh B. Norgrove was terminated from his position as a tenured mathematics teacher after he failed to seek a disciplinary hearing.

Norgrove contended that he never received copies of the disciplinary charges nor notice of his right to file an objection and seek a hearing as provided by Section 3020-a of the Education Law because the notices were sent to an incorrect mailing address.

The Board argued that had served the disciplinary charges on Norgrove by hand and, in addition, by both regular and certified mail sent to his address of record, “428 Worthman Avenue, Apt. No.1, Brooklyn, New York, 11207 … because that was the address BOE [Board of Education] had in its HRS [Human Resource System] for the petitioner in May of 2007." The letters sent Certified Mail was returned to the Board as “unclaimed;” the letters sent regular mail were never returned to the Board.

In rebuttal, Norgrove admitted he had received some documents that were hand delivered but pointed out that he had moved in 2003 and the Board of Education did not dispute his claim that its Office of Salary Services listed his new, and correct, address as 22 Covert Street, 3R, Brooklyn, New York and thus had notice of his correct address “as early as October 2006.”

In essence Norgrove argued that since he was not provided with notice as to his right to request a hearing on the charges, the Board of Education's "unilateral determination to terminate [his] employment without the due process hearing as provided for under Education Law §3020-a deprives [him] of property rights in his tenured position without due process of law, and is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, a violation of lawful procedure, and a violation of the rights guaranteed to Petitioner under the due process clause of the New York State Constitution."

Justice Madden agreed, ruling that:

1. Education Law §3020 recognizes that a tenured teacher has a constitutionally protected property interest in his or her right to continued employment which cannot be deprived without due process.”

2. Contrary to the Board of Education's assertion, the First Notice that was personally delivered by hand to Norgrove on May 11, 2007, did not satisfy the substantive requirements of Section 3020-a(2)(a) as it did not include certain essential information such as details of the charges, nor did it advised Norgrove of his right to a hearing and the maximum penalty if he did not request a hearing within 10 days, as required under section 3020-a(2)(a).

3. “Due process requires the government to provide notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections."

4. In Jones v. Flowers, 547 US 220 the United States Supreme Court held that when the government becomes aware that its attempt at notice has failed, due process requires the government to "take additional reasonable steps to attempt to provide notice to the property owner before selling his property, if it is practicable to do so."

In this instance, the return of the certified mail marked unclaimed meant the Board “had good reason to suspect when the notice was returned that [Norgrove] was no better off than if the notice had never been sent.”

This triggered an obligation on the Board of Education's part to take additional steps to effect notice, such as redelivering a second notice to Norgrove personally at his place of work. Such an effort would have constituted an additional reasonable and practical step to effect notice, “which was clearly available to the Board of Education, since the Board of Education employed [Norgrove] at all times, had direct first-hand knowledge of his work location, and had previously effectuated service on petitioner by such means.”

As to the Board’s argument that Norgrove was obligated to update his address and that he did not do so until after he was terminated, Justice Madden noted that “the identical argument was raised and rejected in Jones on the grounds that the government cannot be relieved of its constitutional obligation to provide adequate notice" even if the individual was required to provide a current address by statute.

As the Board conceded that its Office of Salary Services lists Lesleigh’s correct address at Covert Street prior to 2007, Justice Madden concluded that the Board of Education's determination to terminate his employment must be annulled for not complying with the requirements of due process, and that Norgrove is entitled to reinstatement with back salary and benefits.

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_29034.htm
By Public Employment Law Press on Thursday, January 29, 2009

Matter of Norgrove v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y.2009 NY Slip Op 29034 [23 Misc 3d 684], January 13, 2009Madden, J.Supreme Court, New York CountyLINK

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.As corrected through Wednesday, June 3, 2009
[*1]
In the Matter of Lesleigh B. Norgrove, Petitioner,
v
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, New York County, January 13, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

James R. Sander, New York City (Kathleen M. Kilduff of counsel), for petitioner. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City, for respondents.

{**23 Misc 3d at 685} OPINION OF THE COURT

Joan A. Madden, J.

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner, a tenured mathematics teacher of 28 years, seeks to annul the determination of respondents Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York and Joel I. Klein (collectively the Board of Education) which terminated his employment; petitioner also seeks retroactive reinstatement with full back salary, including interest, and all benefits. For the reasons delineated below, the petition is granted.

The following facts are not disputed unless otherwise noted. By letters dated December 20 and 21, 2006, the Board of Education advised petitioner that "a serious allegation has been made against you," and "[p]ending the outcome of the investigation . . . you are reassigned" to "Region 8 Human Resources." These letters were hand-delivered to petitioner at work and neither letter has an address for petitioner.

On May 11, 2007, while petitioner was working at the Region 8 Human Resources Center (the reassignment center), he received by hand delivery from the Board of Education a document entitled "Notice of Charges" (first notice), which stated as follows:

"In view of your unprofessional conduct while a teacher at Automotive High School, an Empowerment School located in Brooklyn during 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years, the following charges are being preferred:

"1. Just Cause for disciplinary action under Education Law § 3020-a;

"2. Incompetent and inefficient service;

"3. Conduct unbecoming Respondent's position, or conduct prejudicial to the good order, efficiency or discipline of the service;

"By this notice you are hereby informed of the nature of the complaint. I will be preferring and filing the above charges. You will be informed of the procedures involved in the Trial of Charges."

The Board of Education submits affidavits of service that the first notice was personally delivered to petitioner at work, and that it was also sent via certified and regular mail addressed to petitioner at "428 Worthman Avenue, Apt. No. 1, Brooklyn, New York, 11207." Petitioner concedes he received the hand-delivered copy, but denies receipt of the certified and regular mailed copies. He explains that he last resided at Worthman Avenue more than five years ago, and since 2003, he had resided at his current address, 22 Covert Street, Apt. 3R, Brooklyn, New York 11207. While petitioner asserts that the Board of Education's Office of Salary Services lists his correct address at 22 Covert Street, the Board of Education asserts that it used the Worthman Avenue address "because that was the address BOE [Board of Education] had in its HRS [human resource system] for the petitioner in May of 2007."

On May 16, 2007, the Board of Education issued a "Notice of Determination of Probable Cause on Charges Brought Against Tenured School District Employee, Section 3020-a Education Law" (second notice) addressed to petitioner at the Worthman Avenue address. The second notice advised that the Board of Education "has found there is probable cause on the attached charges preferred against you," and that "[w]ithin ten days of receipt of these charges, you must elect to request a hearing before an impartial hearing officer, or [you] will waive your right to such a hearing." The second notice also advised that if petitioner did "not request a hearing to contest these charges, the maximum penalty that will be imposed will be termination." The notice included a form for requesting a hearing and detailed 12 separate factual "Specifications," in which petitioner allegedly "rendered incompetent and inefficient service, engaged in verbal abuse and unprofessional conduct."[FN1] [*3]

The Board of Education asserts that it sent the second notice to the Worthman Avenue address by certified and regular mail,{**23 Misc 3d at 687} and that the regular mail copy was not returned and the certified mail copy was returned "unclaimed." Petitioner asserts{**23 Misc 3d at 688} that he never received the second notice since it was not sent to his correct address, and as a result he could not have submitted a timely request for hearing.

On or about August 31, 2007, Michael Best, Esq., general counsel to the Board of Education, sent petitioner a "Notice of Inquest" by certified and regular mail to the Worthman Avenue address. The letter advised as follows:

"On May 16, 2007, you were served with Education law Section 3020-a charges by regular and certified mail. Under the law, you have ten days to request a hearing on the charges or waive your right to a hearing. We have confirmed your failure to request a hearing with the New York State Education Department. Since you have failed to request a hearing in a timely manner, your right to a hearing is deemed waived.

"For informational purposes only, you are hereby advised that the charges preferred against you are now subject to disposition at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Panel for Education Policy to be held on September 24, 2007 at 6:00 pm at the Tweed Court House, 52 Chambers Street, New York, NY 10007."

[*4]

The Board of Education asserts that the regular mail copy of the notice of inquest was not returned, and that the certified mail copy was returned "unclaimed." Petitioner asserts that he never received the notice of inquest since it was not sent to his correct address.

On October 12, 2007, Chancellor Joel I. Klein, Chairperson of the Panel for Education Policy, wrote to petitioner at the Worthman Avenue address, detailing the events that occurred since the charges were preferred against him on May 16, 2007, specifically the notices sent to him and his failure to respond and request a hearing.[FN2] The letter advised that "[i]n a memorandum dated August 30, 2007, the Office of Legal Services notified the Panel for Educational Policy (hereinafter 'the Panel') that at a trial on these charges, the evidence against you would have consisted of" testimony by specific individuals as to certain conduct. The letter listed the individuals' names, summarized the substance of their testimony, and stated that "[b]ased on{**23 Misc 3d at 689} the representations of the Office of Legal Services, the Panel makes the following findings of fact," which basically adopted the testimony as described. The letter listed the Panel's findings[FN3] and stated that the Panel concluded that "effective immediately, your services with the New York City Department of Education are terminated."

On October 18, 2007, petitioner received by hand delivery at the reassignment center, a letter from the Board of Education which stated in its entirety as follows: "Pursuant to the 3020-a disciplinary proceeding decision you are hereby terminated from your employment with the Department of Education effective October 18, 2007." This letter was hand-delivered to petitioner at work, but was addressed to him at the Worthman Avenue address. Petitioner states that when he received the termination letter, he directly informed his union representative, John Settle, that he had been terminated and that he had never received "formal charges" or "notice of his rights under the Education Law." Petitioner states that his union representative contacted the [*5]Board of Education to request a hearing, and that such request was denied.[FN4] Petitioner subsequently filed a notice of claim on January 18, 2008, and asserts that "approximately thirty (30) days have elapsed since that time and Respondents have refused to adjust such claim."{**23 Misc 3d at 690}

On February 15, 2008, petitioner commenced the instant article 78 proceeding, challenging the termination of his employment. Petitioner contends that the Board of Education failed to comply with the notice requirements of Education Law § 3020 (1), which provides that "[n]o person enjoying the benefits of tenure shall be disciplined or removed during a term of employment except for just cause and in accordance with the procedures specified in section [3020-a]." Particularly, petitioner argues that he was not provided with the statutorily required "Notice of Charges" specifying the charges in detail, the penalty to be imposed and his rights under Education Law § 3020-a. Petitioner asserts that he was provided only with a "Notice of the Nature of the Charges, incorrectly styled as Notice of Charges," that such document bears an incorrect address from over four years prior, and that he did not receive "anything by certified or registered mail with regard to any threatened disciplinary proceedings."

Petitioner contends that since he was not provided with notice as to his right to request a hearing on the charges, the Board of Education's

"unilateral determination to terminate [his] employment without the due process hearing as provided for under Education Law § 3020-a deprives [him] of property rights in his tenured position without due process of law, and is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, a violation of lawful procedure, and a violation of the rights guaranteed to Petitioner under the due process clause of the New York State Constitution."

Petitioner also contends that under Education Law § 3020-a (2) (d), the Board of Education is statutorily obligated to consider whether his failure to timely request a hearing is "excused."

"[*6]a written statement specifying the charges in detail, the maximum penalty which will be imposed by the board if the employee does not request a hearing or that will be sought by the board if the employee is found guilty of the charges after a hearing and outlining the employee's rights under this section, shall be immediately forwarded to the accused employee by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested or by personal delivery to the employee."

Section 3020-a (2) (c) provides that "[w]ithin ten days of receipt of the statement of charges, the employee shall notify the clerk or secretary of the employing board in writing whether he or she desires a hearing on the charges." Section 3020-a (2) (d) provides that the "unexcused failure of the employee to notify the clerk or secretary of his or her desire for a hearing within ten days of the receipt of charges shall be deemed a waiver of the right to a hearing," and "[i]f the employee waives his or her right to a hearing the employing board shall proceed, within fifteen days, by a vote of a majority of all members of such board, to determine the case and fix the penalty, if any, to be imposed."

Here, as a tenured teacher, petitioner was entitled to the procedural due process protections afforded under Education Law § 3020-a, as detailed above. Specifically, after the charges were submitted in writing and filed with the Board of Education and the Board of Education determined that probable cause for the charges existed, the Board was required by statute to forward to petitioner immediately, via certified or registered mail, or personal delivery, a written statement specifying the charges in detail and outlining his rights, including his right to a hearing and the maximum penalty if he did not request a hearing within 10 days. (See Education Law § 3020-a [2] [a]; Matter of Pollock v Kiryas Joel Union Free School Dist., supra; Matter of Chawki v New York City Dept. of Educ., Manhattan High Schools, Dist. 71, supra.)

Contrary to the Board of Education's assertion, the first notice that was personally delivered by hand to petitioner on{**23 Misc 3d at 692} May 11, 2007, did not satisfy the substantive requirements of section 3020-a (2) (a). That notice included a brief list of the charges which merely informed petitioner as to the "nature of the complaint," but it neither specified the details of the charges, nor advised petitioner of his right to a hearing and the maximum penalty if he did not request a hearing within 10 days, as required under section 3020-a (2) (a).

The second notice dated May 16, 2007 satisfied the substantive requirements of section 3020-a (2) (a) by providing the details as to 12 separate incidents, and advising petitioner of his right to request a hearing and that the failure to do so in 10 days would result in his waiving that right with a maximum penalty of termination. That notice, however, was mailed to petitioner via certified and regular mail at the Worthman Avenue address, where petitioner claims he has not resided since 2003.[FN5] For that reason, petitioner asserts that he never received the second notice and was denied due process in that he did not receive notice of the charges or [*7]his right to a hearing in compliance with Education Law § 3020-a (2), since the certified mailing of the second notice was sent to an outdated and incorrect address.

The Board of Education responds that it complied with due process in that: (1) the address at Worthman Avenue was the address the Board of Education had for petitioner in its human resource system; (2) petitioner was responsible for updating his address and the Board of Education's records indicate that he did not do so until after he was terminated;[FN6] (3) the certified mailings of the second notice of May 16, 2007 and the August 31, 2007 notice of inquest were returned "unclaimed"; and (4){**23 Misc 3d at 693} those notices were also sent to petitioner via regular mail and were not returned.

Although due process does not require actual notice before the government may extinguish a person's property interest, "due process requires the government to provide 'notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.' " (Jones v Flowers, 547 US 220, 226 [2006], quoting Mullane v Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 US 306, 314 [1950]; accord Matter of Harner v County of Tioga, 5 NY3d 136, 140 [2005]; Kennedy v Mossafa, 100 NY2d 1, 9 [2003]; Silverstein v Minkin, 49 NY2d 260, 263 [1980], rearg denied 50 NY2d 929 [1980].) In Jones v Flowers (supra) the United States Supreme Court recently held that when the government becomes aware prior to the taking that its attempt at notice has failed, due process requires the government to "take additional reasonable steps to attempt to provide notice to the property owner before selling his property, if it is practicable to do so." (547 US at 225.)

Jones involved the certified mailing of a notice of tax sale to a property owner that was returned unclaimed. The record indicated that the property owner moved out of the house when he and his wife separated, and seven years later, the Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands sent him a certified letter as to the tax delinquency, at the address of the property; two years after that, another certified letter was sent to him at the same address, advising that his house would be sold if he did not pay his taxes. The certified letters were returned marked "unclaimed," and the Commissioner took no further steps to notify the property owner.

The United States Supreme Court concluded that "[t]he Commissioner's effort to provide notice to [the property owner] of an impending tax sale of his house was insufficient to satisfy due process given the circumstances of this case." (Id. at 239.) The Court found that

"[a]lthough the State may have made a reasonable calculation of how to reach [the property owner], it had [*8]good reason to suspect when the notice was returned that [the property owner] was 'no better off than if the notice had never been sent.' Deciding to take no further action is not what someone 'desirous{**23 Misc 3d at 694} of actually informing' [the property owner] would do; such a person would take further reasonable steps if any were available." (Id. at 230 [citation omitted], quoting Malone v Robinson, 614 A2d 33, 37 [DC Ct App 1992].)

"What steps are reasonable in response to new information depends upon what the new information reveals." (Id. at 234.)

Analyzing the "new information," the Court in Jones reasoned that the return of the certified letters marked "unclaimed" meant either that the property owner still lived at the property but was not at home when the postal carrier called and did not retrieve the letter at the post office, or that the property owner no longer resided at that address. (Id.) Based on that information, the Court determined that several additional reasonable steps at notice were available, including resending the notice by regular mail, posting the notice on the front door or addressing otherwise undeliverable mail to "occupant." (Id. at 234-235.)

Although Jones involves an issue of due process and notice in the context of tax sale of real property, petitioner's protected property interest in his tenured teaching position and his right to due process are no less significant. Applying the holding in Jones, this court concludes that the second notice sent by certified mail was insufficient to satisfy due process, as once that notice was returned marked "unclaimed," the Board of Education became aware that its attempt at notice had failed, and due process required the Board of Education to take additional reasonable steps to notify petitioner.[FN7] Moreover, under the circumstances presented, additional reasonable and practicable steps were plainly available.

The Education Law permits service of the notice by two methods in the alternative, by certified or registered mail, or by{**23 Misc 3d at 695} personal delivery. (Education Law § 3020-a [2] [a].) The Board of Education utilized both methods in serving petitioner with the various notices involved in this proceeding. Specifically, the December 2006 letters initially advising petitioner of his reassignment, and the final letter in October 2007 as to his termination, were hand-delivered to petitioner at work, while all other notices in the interim period between those dates, regarding the charges, petitioner's right to a hearing, and his having waived that right, were sent via certified and regular mail to an outdated address. [*9]

As held in Jones, when the certified mail was returned unclaimed, the Board of Education became aware that the notice was ineffective, which triggered an obligation on the Board of Education's part to take additional steps to effect notice, by redelivering the second notice to petitioner personally at his place of work. Personal delivery at work was the one additional reasonable and practical step to effect notice, which was clearly available to the Board of Education, since the Board of Education employed petitioner at all times, had direct firsthand knowledge of his work location, and had previously effectuated service on petitioner by such means.

The Board of Education's additional regular mailing of the notice does not alter this conclusion, in view of the circumstances presented in this proceeding. Although the Court in Jones found that one additional reasonable step addressed to the possibility that the owner had moved, was to resend the notice by regular mail so that a signature was not required, in Jones the government had no knowledge of the owner's actual whereabouts. In sharp contrast, whereas here the Board of Education employed petitioner and knew exactly where he was working, once the certified mail was returned unclaimed, the one practicable and reasonable follow-up measure calculated to make actual notice likely, was personal delivery to petitioner at work.

The Board of Education argues that petitioner was obligated to update his address and that he did not do so until after he was terminated. The identical argument was raised and rejected in Jones, on the grounds that even if the property owner fails to comply with a statutory obligation to keep his address updated, the government cannot be relieved of its constitutional obligation to provide adequate notice. (547 US at 232.) In any event, the Board of Education does not dispute petitioner's assertion that its Office of Salary Services lists his correct address at Covert Street.{**23 Misc 3d at 696}

Based on the foregoing, this court concludes that the Board of Education's determination to terminate petitioner's employment must be annulled for not complying with the requirements of due process, and petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with back salary and benefits.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that the petition is granted, and respondents' determination terminating petitioner's employment is annulled, and respondents shall reinstate petitioner forthwith with full salary and benefits retroactive to November 26, 2007.[FN8]

Footnotes

Footnote 1: The details of the specifications are as follows:

"Specification 1: On or about December 13, 2005, Respondent: a) told Student A in words to the effect of leave the class because he didn't like her; b) pointed at Student A through a window and laughed at her.

"Specification 2: On or about March 29, 2006, Respondent failed to call in when he was absent.

"Specification 3: On or about September 5, 2006, Respondent failed to attend his 9th period class after being told to do so by Assistant Principal Dietrich.

"Specification 4: On or about September 7, 2006, Respondent smoked a cigarette on school premises in violation of Chancellor's Regulation C-810.

"Specification 5: On or about September 7, 2006, Respondent told students words to the effect of: a) You are getting me aggravated; b) If you don't want to be here, don't come to school and aggravate me; c) See what happens when you do the wrong thing; d) There's always a method to the madness; e) If I had a better classroom, I might be able to deal with it; f) I cannot work like this either.

"Specification 6: On or about September 8, 2006, Respondent was dismissed from a disciplinary meeting because of behavior indicative of intoxication.

"Specification 7: Throughout the fall of 2006 Respondent: a) mumbled under his breath; b) was jittery and jumpy; c) appeared unfocused during class.

"Specification 8: On or about September 26, 2006, Respondent rendered an unsatisfactory lesson as observed by Assistant principal Eileen Dietrich in that Respondent failed to: a) properly plan and prepare for the lesson; b) circle the room to assess student work and answer questions; c) use a closure activity; d) maintain a level of academic rigor and content appropriate for the students; e) follow through to have all the students work in groups; f) focus on the entire class; g) immediately address a student error; h) teach the whole period; i) engage students in the lesson; j) properly pace the lesson; k) use a proper 'Do Now' activity; 1) properly call on students; m) maintain control of the class; n) pay attention to routine matters.

"Specification 9: On or about October 12, 2006, Respondent failed to appear for a medical examination and failed to contact the office to notify anyone.

"Specification 10: On or about December 12, 2006, Respondent told a student words to the effect of I don't need this disabled mind in my classroom.

"Specification 11: On or about November and/or December, 2006, Respondent ignored directives from a supervisor to: a) tutor students; b) turn in lesson plans; c) attend a meeting with the supervisor as scheduled.

"Specification 12: On or about fall of 2006, Respondent was teaching the wrong math course."

Footnote 2: The Board of Education does not provide an affidavit of service as to this letter, and does not otherwise indicate the manner in which it was sent or delivered to petitioner.

Footnote 3: The Panel found as follows:

"1. Just cause for disciplinary action under Education Law § 3020-a;

"2. Incompetent and inefficient service;

"3. Conduct unbecoming Respondent's position or conduct prejudicial to the good order, efficiency, or discipline of the service;

Footnote 4: The Board of Education submits an affidavit from Lisa Becker, senior counsel to the Board of Education, stating that she has "no recollection" of a conversation with petitioner's union representative, Mr. Settle, about petitioner's failure to respond to the disciplinary charges and a request for a hearing on his behalf. She also states that even if she had received such a call requesting a hearing on petitioner's behalf, she would have advised Mr. Settle "to make a written application but that it would be denied as petitioner had already been terminated based on his failure to request a hearing in a timely manner."

Footnote 5: Petitioner asserts that "in 2003 he informed principal Silberman and payroll secretary, Pat Wilder, that he was moving and provided the new address to Ms. Wilder." Petitioner further asserts that the Board of Education "had notice of his correct address as early as October 2006," as evidenced by his application for leave of absence for health reasons dated October 12, 2006, and a confidential medical report and evaluation dated November 15, 2006, both of which list his address as 22 Covert Street, 3R, Brooklyn, New York.

Footnote 6: The Board of Education produces a computer printout from its human resource system, indicating petitioner's address as "428 Worthman Avenue," as well as an internal complaint from December 2005 listing petitioner's "home address" as "428 Worthman Avenue." The Board of Education also submits several documents from 2006, addressed to petitioner at "428 Wortman Avenue," including an October 13, 2006 letter regarding his failure to appear for an October 12, 2006 medical examination.

The Board of Education notes that on October 23, 2007, "almost two weeks after his termination," petitioner contacted the Board of Education "to change his address with the BOE system" from 428 Worthman Avenue to 22 Covert Street, and that his address was "updated in the BOE system on November 7, 2007."

Footnote 7: The cases cited by the Board of Education distinguishing between "unclaimed" and "undeliverable" mail, Matter of Harner v County of Tioga (5 NY3d 136 [2005]) and Cadle Co. v Tri-Angle Assoc. (18 AD3d 100 [1st Dept 2005]), appear to be contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Jones v Flowers (supra). The Board of Education also cites an appellate case decided after Jones, which finds Jones factually distinguishable, Temple Bnai Shalom of Great Neck v Village of Great Neck Estates (32 AD3d 391 [2d Dept 2006] [certified mail notice as to the right to redeem was sent by the private citizen who previously purchased the tax lien; multiple mailings were sent to various potential recipients at their current and correct addresses, and were returned unclaimed only after repeated attempts at delivery; and no suggestion in the record that the potential recipients were not at home or otherwise legitimately unavailable to sign for the mailing], lv denied 8 NY3d 813 [2007], cert denied 552 US —, 128 S Ct 1241 [2008]).

Footnote 8: Petitioner states that while he was terminated as of October 18, 2007, he remained on payroll until November 25, 2007.

Sunday, December 2, 2007"Negative learning" and statistical malpractice at the Panel on Educational PolicyLINK

At last week’s meeting of the Panel on Education Policy at Tweed, Jim Liebman’s performance in attempting to defend the indefensible – the school grading system that he designed -- was breathtaking in its ignorance.

Liebman, the current DOE accountability “czar,” is a former criminal attorney, currently on leave from the Columbia law school, with no training or experience in education policy, statistics or testing, and yet the entire educational focus of the DOE is now based upon his faulty theories and expensive initiatives, including the $80 million supercomputer called ARIS, assigning letter grades to all schools primarily on the basis of one year’s worth of test scores, devoting millions of more dollars and hours of precious classroom time to interim standardized assessments, and the creation of “data inquiry teams” in all schools – all in the effort to “differentiate instruction” which in the end will be impossible without smaller classes.

At the PEP meeting, in order to justify the school grading system, he fastened on the “F” that PS 35 in Staten Island received, a school in which 98% of its students are on grade level in math, and 86% in ELA. Why did this exemplary school receive an “F”? Because last year, only 35% of its students improved their scores over the year before in reading, and only 23% in math – though research shows that a large part of annual variations in test scores are based on chance alone and are statistically unreliable. (For more on this, see my Daily News oped and a previous posting, Ten reasons to distrust the new accountability system.)

During the discussion, Liebman compared PS 35 to one of its “peer” schools – the Anderson school, a citywide Gifted and Talented school that accepts students on the basis of their high IQ and high test scores. When Patrick Sullivan pointed out the unfairness of comparing PS 35 to a selective school like Anderson, Liebman said it didn’t matter how the kids got there, they should all make the same annual gains. He failed to mention, however, that elementary schools are grouped with other schools according to only the roughest measures of demography –and that no statistician would compare the performance of a school that selects its students on the basis of test scores with a neighborhood school, like PS 35, that has to admit every child in its zone.

There was an abundance of statistical malpractice on display that night -- between Liebman’s presentation and the talk given by the DOE testing “expert”, Jennifer Bell-Elwanger, who tried to convince the panel that the city’s lack of significant progress on the NAEPs since 2003 was indeed real progress. Both of these individuals would have flunked an elementary course in statistics if they had tried to make these arguments in a college exam.

When asked wouldn’t it better to have separate grades for achievement and progress, rather than collapse all these categories into one grade, even if he were convinced that the lack of one year’s progress in test scores was significant (which it isn’t) Liebman replied that the good thing about giving a single grade is that it gets people’s attention (or something like that.) One could say the same about threatening to cut off the hands of someone accused of theft, or even capital punishment, which doesn’t mean it’s a remotely fair practice or even useful.

More recently, in response to questions about class size from parents in Manhattan and Queens, Liebman has insisted that the reason the DOE refuses to reduce class size is that classes would have to shrink to below 15 students to improve instruction and/or student achievement. In other words, lowering class size from 30 to 20 would make absolutely no difference.

Not only is such a statement absurd to anyone who has actually spent any time teaching in the public schools or observing classrooms, it is completely unsupported by research. Instead, it is simply another lame excuse that opponents of reducing class size like to throw up as a smokescreen in order to discourage such efforts.

Here is a comment sent to me from Chuck Achilles, a principal investigator of the famed STAR experiment in Tennessee and a professor of at Eastern Michigan University and at Seton Hall University. Chuck is also one of the premier class size researchers in the world:

“Hi Leonie:

I thought that the “below 15” idea (archaic) had faded. Anyone who says that is uninformed and ought to be asked (challenged) publicly to defend the assertion. It came once from one meta-analysis (Glass & Smith, 1988) that was very limited in its n of observations (77, of which some were for physical skills like hitting a tennis ball against a wall.) Just in STAR, we had more than 1300 observations in the range of 12-28 students. We typically analyzed reading outcomes, but sometimes we did math (giving us 2600 comparisons) and could have used other academic (test) outcomes… I’ve faxed some pages to show the linear effect: About a correlation of -.35 for each student added to a class. Because STAR used the class average as the unit of analysis, this means (approximately) the addition of each student to a class in the n=12-28 range reduces the class average score (about .1 of a month per year.) Later analyses show that it is cumulative.

Chuck A.”

Here is a fact sheet with numerous citations, showing there is no threshold in terms of reducing class size; and that the increase in achievement in relation to the decrease in class size is roughly linear.

Liebman reminds me of a phenomenon called “negative learning” ---in layman’s terms, a little learning is a dangerous thing. One would think that someone who got his reputation by writing about the high error rate in capital punishment would have a little humility and understand the possibility of human fallibility in making absolute judgments, but no such luck.
Posted by Leonie Haimson at 12/02/2007 08:30:00 PM ShareThis
Labels: class size, James Liebman, linear, NAEP, negative learning, nyc school grades, statistical malpractice, threshold effect
2 comments:

NYC Educator said...

It's hard to rely on people whose jobs involve defending the status quo. It's doubly hard when those are the very people who created it.
December 3, 2007 2:19 PM
Anonymous said...

Where do we grade the chancellor and mayor on the continuing horrific overcrowding of high schools in Queens. Whereas the new "smaller" schools don't have open enrollment, the larger, older schools don't have caps and keep taking in students (via safety transfers, new admits into NYC and other transfers --such as from prison and juvenile detention) even though there is no space for them in the school. What difference does it make to the chancellor that these schools are at 200 percent capacity or 300 percent capacity?

I only say this because as a NYC teacher, I just received an additional seven students in the past two weeks...a couple of the students are no shows (I tried to contact parents, but had no luck), a couple of the students are already disruptive (they transferred with their behaviors) and all the students are way behind in my class--and, of course, getting new students constantly throws off the balance and coherence in a class.

None of this is measurable by the report card system. The schools (mine, at least) is trying really hard to assist and educate all of our students, but the overcrowding and constant increase in enrollment is creating chaos. This is chaos that we are not causing but will cause us to get a failing grade.....

TV Appearances by Betsy Combier

Lawline

Contact me with a concern or issue

I assist anyone who needs help, so email me your problem to start the ball rolling! I am a teacher/parent advocate, and I am the editor/writer for this blog and the website parentadvocates.org. I also write about court corruption on my blog "NYC Court Corruption". I am interested in random injustice and the criminalizing of innocent people. If you want to chat you may email me at: betsy.combier@gmail.com and I'm on twitter and have a facebook page too. I'm not an attorney and do not give legal advice.

If you want to talk with me about your 3020-a charges, I consult and go over your case without charge. No fee.

And, in response to the lies of certain individuals who resent my work, the truth is that all conversations are confidential and I do not tape secretly.

Testimonial from an Exonerated Teacher

Dear Betsy,I am forever indebted to you, Betsy, for your expert counsel throughout a horrific ordeal. You worked tirelessly to prove my innocence in a 3020a proceeding that was instigated by a corrupt school district and fueled by lies. My proceedings ended with my complete exoneration, my record expunged and my immediate return to the classroom. We didn't even need to file an appeal! Thank you, Betsy. I am now eligible to retire and enjoy the benefits you helped me to protect. God bless you and the work you do protecting the innocent.Sincerely,Maria Gargano

My Thoughts and Raison d'etre

This blog is about the denial of Constitutional rights by the Mayor, the New York City Department of Education and the Chancellor, New York State and Federal Courts, New York State legislature, and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), as well as PACs and all parties participating in the business of public school education in New York City, to harm and in neglect of parents, children, and staff of public schools in the five boroughs. These thoughts are not simply mindless conclusions reached out of thin air, but a result of 14 years of research into the NYC DOE and the Courts as a reporter and paralegal.
I am an advocate of Unions and union rights, public schools and charters, and learning online as well as outside of the classroom. I cannot and do not support anyone, whether they be union management, government, private members of the political or legal system, or simply retired teachers with an agenda, if he or she tramples, discards, or rebuffs anyone's individual civil rights. As a reporter, journalist, advocate, researcher and paralegal, I have created this blog to inform the public about my experience working for the UFT and being the parent of four daughters who went through the public school system in NYC, as well as examine issues that flow from the massive denial of due process rights that I saw and have documented. The two most important points you should remember: first, everyone at the New York City Board/Department of Education and all Union bigs are motivated by power and money, and looking good. If anyone dares to blow the whistle on these racketeers, retaliation follows, so be a strategist; second, I am not an Attorney and nothing I write or say is legal advice, simply my thoughts. Take 'em or leave 'em.
Betsy Combier, Editor
NYC Rubber Room Reporter
http://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com
New York Court Corruption
http://newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com
Parentadvocates.org
http://www.parentadvocates.org
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/betsy.combier
Twitter: http://twitter.com/BetsyCombier
The NYC Public Voice
http://nycpublicvoice.blogspot.com/betsy.combier@gmail.com
Lawline July 27, 2011
http://www.teachem.com/lawlinetv/learn/lawline-tv-teachers-unions-the-last-in-first-out-rule/

Principal Anne Seifullah changes her image so that she can keep her job amidst sexting and trysts in the school, Robert Wagner Secondary Sch...

Google + Rubber Room Community

FAITH

When we walk to the edge of all the light we have and take the step into the darkness of the unknown, we must believe that one of two things will happen. There will be something solid for us to stand on or we will be taught to fly. Patrick Overton

Truth Seeks Light - Lies Seek Shadows

Twins Jill Danger (left) and Betsy Combier(right)

sayin like it is

Actions Have Consequences

Writing as Music

Rubber Room teachers wish me a happy birthday (2006)

"Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all."

Rubber Room Satire

The Labor Movement

The Teaching Equation

We Can Work Out Our Differences

The E-Accountability Foundation

The E-Accountability Foundation brings you this blog which highlights issues that have or should be read by people interested in civil rights, and accountability. The E-Accountability Foundation is a 501(C)3 organization that holds people accountable for their actions online and, through the internet, seeks to bring justice to anyone who has been harmed without reason. We give the'A for Accountability' Awardto those who are willing to blow the whistle on unjust, misleading, or false actions and claims of the politico-educational complex in order to bring about educational reform in favor of children of all races, intellectual ability and economic status.

AddThis

Performance Management - Office of Labor Relations

From Betsy Combier

The NYC Office of Labor Relations, with the support of the UFT, has issued to principals a document called"Performance Management" on how to get rid of an incompetent teacher. Who is an "incompetent teacher"? Anyone the NYC Department of Education wants to remove from the system because he/she is too senior (makes too much money), is disabled (and therefore cannot be deemed factory-perfect) and/or is other impaired (is a whistleblower, cannot be intimidated, is ethnically challenged - not the 'right' race, etc).

Candace R. McLaren

Director, Office of Special Investigations (OSI)

Google+ Badge

Google+ Followers

Follow by Email

Polo Colon

"Rubber Room"

(1) a space where a worker subject to a disciplinary hearing or other administrative action waits and does no work; generally, a place or personal mind-set of isolation.(2) a literal reference to a padded cell, which is, according to the New Oxford American Dictionary, “a room in a psychiatric hospital with padded walls to prevent violent patients from injuring themselves.”from Double-Tongued Dictionary http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/rubber_room/

"Rubberization"

The word "rubberization" is a new word that is used to describe the process of assigning and paying people to sit and do nothing in a drab room away from their place of employment while their employers make up charges that allege sexual or corporal misconduct without any facts upon which to base the allegation on.

Email Subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz

Theresa Europe, NYC BOE ATU Director

Robin Greenfield

Deputy Counsel to the NYC DOE

UFT Pres. Mike Mulgrew and NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg

UFT umbrella pals

New York State Supreme Court Judge Manuel Mendez

ATR CONNECT

Tenured Teachers who are found to be guilty of misconduct or incompetency at 3020-a but are not terminated, who have blown the whistle on the misconduct of politically favored NYC Department of Education employees, and/or who are simply disliked for any reason can suddenly find themselves in the ATR ("Absent Teacher Reserve") pool - employees without rights or voices, and without chapter leader union representation.

This new group of people are the "new" rubber roomers without representation at the UFT and denied the protection of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, because basically they have been pushed out of their jobs unfairly and under color of law by Mayor Bloomberg and the Chief Executives of the Department of Education who call themselves "Chancellors", "Network Leaders", "Superintendents", etc., consistently without any facts or evidence to support the false claims.

A group of teachers who are, or were, made into ATRs, ATR Polo Colon, and I, Betsy Combier, an advocate for transparency and labor/employment rights, have joined together to expose the denial of due process, civil and human rights by chiefs of the NYC Department of Education (NYC DOE), certain arbitrators at 3020-a, leaders of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), the "investigators" -agents who work for the Special Commissioner of Investigation (SCI), Office of Special Investigation (OSI), and the Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) - and the Attorneys who work for the New York United Teachers (NYSUT), and the New York Law Department (Corporation Counsel).

In order to protect the safety of those who join this group to promote an end to the "Rubberization" process described on this blog since 2007, names of those who tell their stories will, for now, remain anonymous if the person so desires, and Polo and I will be the gatekeepers. So if you are an ATR, or know a story involving an ATR or someone re-assigned or about to go into a 3020-a, please use the email address advocatz77@gmail.com and give us your contact information. We will protect your anonymity and hold onto your privacy.

Betsy Combier and Polo Colon, Editors

FAITH When we walk to the edge of all the light we have and take the step into the darkness of the unknown, we must believe that one of two things will happen. There will be something solid for us to stand on or we will be taught to fly.

Patrick Overton

We have forty million reasons for failure but not a single excuse.Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

The Re-Assignment Overview by Betsy Combier

The New York City Board of Education decided in 2002 to rid the public school system of staff who interfered with their takeover and control. The criteria for a "good teacher" is now, more often than not, a "silent teacher", a person who never asks questions, is younger than 40, is making a salary below $50,000, does not care about kids and what they learn, or whether or not money (books, supplies, equipment, etc) is missing. When a teacher or staff member of a school dares to do the right thing and speaks out about wrong-doing - this person is often called a "whistleblower" or "flamethrower" - or, simply is not liked for any reason by the Principal/NYC personnel, suddenly he/she is accused of something by somebody ("given a label of "A", "B", "C", and so on) and whisked away to a drab room called a temporary re-assignment center or "rubber room". Members of the offices of the Special Commissioner of Investigation or the Office of Special Investigations then start work on building a case against the person to justify their being thrown in prison, declared "unfit for duty", or, as Mr. Joel Klein has said, characterized as "guilty of sexual activities and corporal punishment" against the children of New York City.The stories of the people I have met who sit every day in the 8 rubber rooms of NYC prove to me that Mr. Klein is very wrong about his assessment, and this blog is created to prove it to you.

Puppy Snooze

US Department of Labor ELAWS

Aeri Pang, Gotcha Squad Attorney

Attorney Pang, red dress, now chief Attorney For New York State Supreme Court Judge Cynthia Kern

New York State Supreme Court Judge Cynthia Kern

NYC EdStats You Can Use

$12.5 billion: Annual New York City Department of Education (DOE) budget (2002)

$21 billion: Annual New York City DOE budget (2009)
1,719: Number officials employed by the DOE central administration in June 2002

2,442: Number of officials employed by the central administration as of November 2008

2: Number of DOE officials earning more than $180,000 per year in 2004.

22: Number of DOE officials earning more than $180,000 per year in 2007.

5: Number of DOE public relations staffers in 2003.

23: Number of DOE public relations staffers in 2008.

944: Number of contracts approved by DOE in 2008, at a total cost of $1.9 billion.

20: Percentage of contracts that exceeded estimated cost by at least 25 percent.

$67.5 million: Annual budget of Project Arts, a decade-old program that was the sole source of dedicated funding for arts education. It was eliminated in 2007.

86: Percentage of principals who said in a 2008 poll that they were unable to provide a quality education because of excessive class sizes in their schools.

100,000: Number of seats DOE plans to provide for charter school students by 2012.

25,000: Number of seats DOE plans to build under 2010 to 2014 capital plan.

66,895: Number of K-3 school-children in classes of 25 or more during the 2008-09 school year.

15,440: Average number of seats per year built during the last six years of the Rudolph Giuliani administration.

10,895: Average number of seats per year built during the first six years of the Bloomberg administration.

27.2: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2001-02 who were Black.

14.1: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2006-07 who were Black.

53.3: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2001-02 who were white.

65.5: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2006-07 who were white.

76: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Latino students in 8th grade English Language Arts (ELA) in 2003.

75: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Hispanic students in 8th grade ELA in 2008.

77: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Hispanic 8th graders in math in 2003.

81: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Hispanic 8th graders in math in 2008.

54: Percentage of New York City public school parents who disapproved of Mayor Bloomberg’s handling of education, according to a March 2009 Quinnipiac poll.

Sources: New York City Council, New York City Comptroller’s Office, New York Daily News, New York Post, Eduwonkette, Quinnipiac Institute, Black Educator, Class Size Matters, New York City Schools Under Bloomberg and Klein.

Betsy Combier and NYSUT lawyer Chris Callagy

The New York City Whistle Award

NYC Whistlers, Winners of the NYC Whistle Award

...are those individuals in New York City who are willing to whistleblow unjust, misleading, or false actions and claims of the politico-educational complex in order to bring about educational reform in favor of children of all races, intellectual ability and economic status. Whistlers ask questions that need to be asked, such as "where is the money?" and "Why does it have to be this way?" and they never give up.

These people have withstood adversity and have held those who seem not to believe in honesty, integrity and compassion accountable for their actions.

Congratulations, and keep up the good work!

Betsy Combier

Special Commissioner of Investigation Richard Condon

Condon "qualified" for his current post after Bloomberg lowered standards; who will leash him?

A great teacher

After being interviewed by the school administration, the prospective teacher said: 'Let me see if I've got this right.

'You want me to go into that room with all those kids, correct their disruptive behavior, observe them for signs of abuse, monitor their dress habits, censor their T-shirt messages, and instill in them a love for learning.

'You want me to check their backpacks for weapons, wage war on drugs and sexually transmitted diseases, and raise their sense of self esteem and personal pride.

'You want me to teach them patriotism and good citizenship, sportsmanship and fair play, and how to register to vote, balance a checkbook, and apply for a job 'You want me to check their heads for lice, recognize signs of antisocial behavior, and make sure that they all pass the final exams.

'You also want me to provide them with an equal education regardless of their handicaps, and communicate regularly with their parents in English, Spanish or any other language, by letter, telephone, newsletter, and report card.

'You want me to do all this with a piece of chalk, a blackboard, a bulletinboard, a few books, a big smile, and a starting salary that qualifies me for food stamps. 'You want me to do all this and then you tell me. . . I CAN'T PRAY?

NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly

Joel Klein's famous statement about rubber room teachers and staff

On November 27, 2006, temporarily re-assigned teacher (TRT) Polo Colon asked Joel Klein, the "pretend" Chancellor of the NYC public school system, if he had voted to terminate teachers at the secret Executive Session held just before the public meeting of the Panel For Educational Policy.Mr. Klein answered,"We did not vote to terminate you. We did vote to terminate a teacher in executive Session...in fact, we voted to terminate two teachers. It's perfectly consistent with the law.Many teachers have been charged with sexual activities and some are charged with corporal punishment...I have no interest in removing people who are qualified to teach, I can assure you, because I dont get any return...and in fact, I have complained publicly about how long this process drags out. But our first concern will always be and, as a former lawyer and somebody who clerked on the United States Supreme Court I will tell you, there is no violation of due process whatsoever..."- extracted from the audiotape of the PEP meeting bought by Betsy Combier after filing a FOIL request to the NYC BOE

November 26, 2007 Candelight Vigil

The School Law Blog

A Review of Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools by Betsy Combier

Lydia Segal's book puts the NYC, Chicago, and California Departments of Education on notice....we who have read this book know more about how the system is not there for our kids than "you" want us to know. Lydia Segal's book Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools changes the public school reform movement forever. We can no longer assume that more money allocated to our schools will "fix" the disaster that is our public school system.

Lydia Segal draws on her 10 years of undercover investigation and research in over five urban school districts, including the three largest, New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and the two most decentralized, Houston and Edmonton, Canada, to provide, in her new book Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools, the details of the corruption, theft, fraud, and patronage that has overrun our public school establishment for several decades. There is no question that anyone who is interested in school reform -this means anyone who pays taxes, is a parent or guardian of a child attending school and/or who works toward a goal of establishing an education system that puts children first - must read this book. Ms. Segal's research and information on the education establishment's 'dark' side outrages the reader, and incites us to demand change. Her book therefore, is much more than a book, it is a call to action. We cannot be bystanders any longer to the systemic abuse she so vividly describes, and we will never be able to listen in the same way ever again to school Principals, Superintendents, school custodians or district board members as they request more money "to help the children."

The book's detailed reports on the corruption and crime in our public schools, supported by 52 pages of interview notes, references and specific examples, provide irrefutable evidence that the current failures of our nation's public schools are not due to the lack of money but the impossibility of getting the money to the children who need it and for whom the money is allocated in the first place. Recent statistics show that students of all ages are not learning what they need to know, schools are overcome with violence, teachers are demoralized, and yet billions of dollars are literally shovelled into the system every year. The New York City school system receives more than $16 billion every year; Los Angeles, $7 billion; and Chicago, $3.6 billion. Where does this money go? We have all asked this question as we have walked through school hallways dodging the paint falling off the walls and ceilings, watching our children sitting on broken chairs, using bathrooms without running water or toilet paper, and struggling to achieve their personal best without the services and resources they are supposed to have. Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools is the first book ever to systematically examine school waste and corruption and how to fight it. Ms. Segal, an undercover school investigator turned law professor, documents where the money goes, how waste and fraud embedded in the operation of large school bureaucracies siphon money from classrooms, distort educational priorities, block initiatives, and what we can do to bring badly-needed change. She describes in detail how only a small percentage of the money allocated to students in our public schools actually gets used by them due to corruption and waste, and how city school systems scoring lowest on standardized tests tend to have the biggest criminal records and most payroll padding. Coding problems, the procurement process, compartmentalization and opacity of information leave administrators with only two options: good corruption (which ultimately helps the kids) and bad corruption (which never helps anyone but the perpetrator and his/her allies and accomplices). Indeed, the system fights those who try the good corruption route.

Ms. Segal argues that the problem is not usually bad people, but a bad system that focuses on process at the expense of results. Decades of rules and regulations along with layers of top-down supervision make it so hard to do business with school systems that they encourage the very fraud and waste they were designed to curb. She tells us about how the "godfathers" and "godmothers" (the school board members) obtain jobs for their "pieces" in order to protect the systemic waste and fraud from being dismantled or exposed. Fortunately, she writes, there are good people involved in the corruption as well who must violate the rules in order to get their jobs done. Nonetheless, absurdities abound: school systems following rules to save every penny spend thousands of dollars hunting down checks as small as $25; it takes so long to pay vendors for their work that some have to bribe school officials to move their checks along; caring Principals who want to fix leaky toilets may have to pay workers under the table because submitting a work order through the central office could, and often does, take years. Meanwhile, those who pilfer from classrooms get away with it because the pyramidal structure of large districts makes schools inherently difficult to oversee. What makes Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools a must-read is not only the fascinating - and depressing - details of the systemic wrong-doing but also Ms. Segal's suggestions for reform, based on the proven track records of school systems across North America that have successfully reduced waste and fraud and have pushed more resources into schools.

The pathology of the corruption suggests the remedy, Ms. Segal says, which is decentralization of power into the schools and the hands of the Principals. Distilling what successful school systems have done, Segal advocates new forms of oversight that do not clog up school systems and recommends giving principals more discretion over their school budgets as well as holding them accountable for job performance. She argues for "autonomy in exchange for performance accountability" as part of a bold, far-reaching plan for reclaiming our schools. Her conclusion is logical and convincing. Everyone who reads this book will find his or her perception of public school education changed forever. We cannot accept any longer that a generation of children has been abused by a system that is so full of greed and corruption without screaming "stop!" and "Your game is up!"

Segal reveals how systemic waste and fraud siphon millions of dollars from urban classrooms and shows how money is lost in systems that focus on process rather than on results, as well as how regulations established to curb waste and fraud provide perverse incentives for new forms of both. Anyone who is interested in school reform--this means anyone who pays taxes, is a parent or guardian of a child attending school, and/or who works toward a goal of establishing an education system that puts children first--must read this book. --

Lydia G. Segal is Associate Professor of Criminal Law and Public Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York.

The NYC BOE FAMIS Online Tour

The FAMIS Portal Online Tour provides an overview and demonstration of the FAMIS Portal. Computer speakers or headphones are recommended. Choose an item of interest below, or click on the Introduction to proceed through all of the modules in sequence.

About Me

Reporter, paralegal, advocate,I will investigate, search on the internet and in all data bases for information that will help a person in need of resolution to a problem.I believe in substantive and procedural due process for all individuals, groups and organizations and trademarked the term "e-accountability" to describe the purpose of my work. I am the parent of four daughters.

Statcounter

Site Meter

Disclaimer

This page states the general terms of use under which you, the blog visitor (hereinafter "you", "user", or "visitor") may use NYCrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com. By reading this blog, you agree to all of the terms set forth below. You may reprint, copy, and use any article on this website as long as you do not sell or change the article and you cite this blog as your source. This blog reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to change any or all of the provisions of this "Terms of Use & Disclaimer Agreement" at any time; the agreement in effect at the time of your use shall govern your use and your use after the effective date of any changes to these Terms will be deemed acceptance of your acceptance of the changes. We have followed what we believe to be the guidelines of US Code TITLE 17, Chapter 1, Section 107: FAIR USE: "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phone records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." We will, if asked with good reason to remove any material from our site that the original owner feels may jeopardize their standing before the Law, do so. We oppose violence of any kind, disrespect, verbal or physical abuse, and any kind of theft or hurtful behavior toward anyone at any time, and expect all users of this blog to be mindful of these values and use the information we have collected in good faith. We have made every effort to describe the actions, not motives, of public people, and we have supported everything that we post with documents to prove the validity of what we say in order to not make any fraudulent or false claims. We believe that it is a civic duty to expose wrong-doing, and we have the legal right to name the perpetrators who pursue illegal activities as defined by the respondents to their actions. If a public official or employee writes, says, or does anything that is against the Laws of this country or that falsifies data which leads to the intentional infliction of emotional distress, harassment, verbal and/or physical abuse of a student/parent/teacher, we claim license to post the acts of such people on our website, with the name of the perpetrator. The truth is not defamatory. We claim that we are not "out to get" any particular person.You agree that you do not acquire any ownership rights in any downloaded content. You further agree that all rights in the site and any of the content found on the site not granted to you under this agreement are expressly reserved to the editor. You agree to not extract any content in order to repurpose or resell the site's content or tools, and you agree to not "scrape" and/or reformat any information without the written permission of the editor. This blog protects and enforces copyrights for its' own creative material and respects the copyright property of others, as well as our right to "FAIR USE". We do not permit materials known by us to be infringing on the copyright of others to be on the site, and we ask that you notify us promptly if you believe that any materials infringe upon a third-party copyright. Upon receipt of a proper notice of claimed infringement under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) we will respond promptly to remove or disable access to the material claimed to be infringing that is in our direct control, assuming that there is also infringement of FAIR USE. This agreement and any policies and rules posted on this blog constitute the complete and exclusive and final expression of the agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. No waiver by the editor of this blog or you of any breach or default under this agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding or subsequent breach or default.This blog provides as a service homepages of websites we believe may be helpful to the user; we provide these links and resources solely as a convenience to you, the user, and we do not endorse the content of these sites. We are not responsible for the content of any linked sites and make no representations regarding the content or accuracy of materials on these sites. If you visit any sites linked to this site, you do so at your own risk. We will not assume any responsibility for the servicing or replacing of equipment or data, or any costs for either. This site and its material are provided on an "as is" basis without any warranties of any kind. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE, SHALL THE EDITOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SITE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION USE OF OR RELIANCE ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THIS BLOG - WHETHER BASED ON WARRANTY, CONTRACT, TORT, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY AND WHETHER THE EDITOR IS ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES - INTERRUPTIONS, ERRORS, DEFECTS, MISTAKES, OMISSIONS, DELETIONS OF FILES, DELAYS IN OPERATION OR TRANSMISSION, NONDELIVERY OF INFORMATION, DISCLOSURE OF COMMUNICATIONS, OR ANY OTHER FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE. THE EDITOR OF THIS BLOG DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, INCLUDING THE WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS, AND THE WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. YOU AGREE THAT ANY RECOURSE FOR DISSATISFACTION OR PROBLEMS WITH THIRD-PARTY GOODS OR SERVICES WILL BE SOUGHT FROM THE THIRD-PARTY PROVIDER DIRECTLY.To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, you will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless The EDITOR OF THIS BLOG (and any of her subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, distributors, third party providers, and licensors) from and against all claims, liability, and expenses, including attorney's fees and legal fees and costs, arising out of your use of the site or your breach of any provision of this agreement. The Editor reserves the right, in her sole discretion and at her own expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you. You will cooperate as fully as reasonably required in the defense of any claim.This agreement, your performance under it, and any disputes arising under it shall be governed exclusively by the laws of internet usage as stated by the federal courts of the United States. You agree to pay all legal fees incurred by any legal action filed against the Editor of this blog in any action in which she as the defendant prevails.Any information collected about your visit to the web site is non-personal in nature and used solely for the purpose of helping us to assess the areas of our site that are most useful to visitors, and therefore need to be as complete and user-friendly as possible. In the area of listserv sign-ups, contribution data, and/or any other email or membership sign-up option now or in the future on our site, all information is collected on a strictly voluntary and confidential basis, and will not be sold, used or released for any third-party purpose. We do not permit any transactions from or by any person who is 13 years old or younger.